Court of Appeal Upholds Remedial Order Resulting From Demolition
of Hollywood Landmark

By a MetNews
Staff Writer

The Court of Appeal
for this district yesterday upheld a Los Angeles Superior Court judge’s order
requiring the City of Los Angeles and a developer to remedy the illegal
demolition of the façade of the Hollywood building that housed the Old
Spaghetti Factory.

Justice Madeleine
Flier, in an unpublished opinion for Div. Eight, rejected claims by the
developer, 5929 Sunset (Hollywood), LLC that the case is moot because the
demolition cannot be reversed, construction is finished, temporary certificates
of occupancy were issued, residential re occupied, and a public park that is
part of the project is open.

The justice
noted that the petitioner, La Mirada Avenue Neighborhood Association of
Hollywood, is seeking to void the demolition permits and temporary certificates
of occupancy, and bar the city from issuing further certificates until it has
fully reviewed the project in accordance with the ordinances that the trial
judge found were violated.

“The voiding of
these certificates and a stay on further ones pending reapproval is not a
meaningless act with no practical impact,” Flier wrote. “The residential
building and park cannot be occupied without valid certificates of
occupancy....If La Mirada is correct that all permits including occupancy
certificates are void pending reapproval, this clearly affects the tenants of
the building, the public who use the park, and the Developer, who will have to
deal with a project that may not be occupied for some period of time.”

The present
developer, 5929 Sunset, took over the project, located at Sunset Blvd. and
North Gordon St., from Sunset & Gordon Investors, LLC, four years ago. The
project includes a 23-story building housing 305 residential units, retail and
office space, and the park, along with subterranean parking.

The initial plans,
recognizing the historical value of the building—it was built in 1924 as a
luxury automobile showroom, and later housed the KNX and then the KMPC
studios—were to incorporate the original façade into the project. That aspect
of the project was incorporated into the “plot plan,” and vesting tentative
tract map and the city approved several parking-related variances which the
original developer said were necessary because the retention of the façade
would limit the number of subterranean spaces that could be built.

In 2008, the La
Mirada association filed a writ of mandate challenging various approvals by the
city, but the trial and appellate courts sided with the developer, which cited
the requirement to retain the façade as justification for the parking
variances.

The original
developer applied for a partial demolition permit in 2008, but stopped work
before any demolition occurred. 5929 Sunset took over in 2011.

The new
developer’s engineer and architect concluded that maintenance of the façade was
impossible because the walls would be heavily damaged by vibrations during
construction, and workers might be injured even if the walls were braced. The
architect, who said the façade had deteriorated during the time the property
was vacant, suggested that the building be demolished but the original
appearance reconstructed based on visual records.

The developer
said it could reconstruct the façade, while retaining four wood trusses and a
fireplace mantel from the original building. In 2012, the city granted a permit
for full demolition, which began in February of that year, with building
permits issued and construction beginning the following July.

The La Mirada
association then brought a new mandate petition, arguing that the city violated
its own ordinances by allowing full demolition of the façade, contrary to the
plot plan and the prior approvals. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James
Chalfant agreed and ordered all permits voided and a new environmental review
commenced before any further changes could take place.

The Court of
Appeal granted a stay earlier this year, allowing the developer to continue
occupying the property after the temporary certificates of occupancy expired
and the city said it would not issue new certificates due to the litigation.

Flier, in her
opinion yesterday, said the city’s Central Area Planning Commission had abused
its discretion by not voiding all of the permits and licenses, including the
certificates of occupancy. The city’s code, she noted, says flatly that “no
permit or license shall be issued in violation of any provisions of this Code
or any other ordinance.”

The city
violated that provision, she said, by finding that the building permits
substantially complied with the prior conditions of approval.

“If completely demolishing
the OSF building did not substantially conform to the plot plan—as the zoning
administrator determined—then a development plan in which the façade was
completely demolished did not substantially conform to the plot plan,” the
jurist wrote.